The Five Wounds of Holy Church

1.It is undoubtedly the most famous of Rosmini’s
books, written with great passion and love for the Church. It caused him
immense personal damage, but he felt that the renewal of the Church was of such
great urgency that he had to be prepared to suffer for it. Rosmini borrowed the
image of the “crucified Church” from Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254).

2.Rosmini wrote it in 1832, but did not publish
it, “the time did not seem
ripe”. In 1846, a new Pope was elected, Pius IX “who seems destined to renew our age and
give the Church the impetus for a new, glorious stage of unimaginable
development”: Rosmini published it in 1848 for a
circle of friends “who
have shared my sorrow, and now look forward with me in hope”. It was issued immediately in other editions, against Rosmini’s
wishes, by pirate publishing houses. It had a swift and wide diffusion. There
was also an English edition of the book published in London, translated by an
Anglican canon. A curious episode is connected with the Rovereto Edition of
1863, when many Bishops and Cardinals had gathered at Trento for the
celebrations of the third centenary of the famous Council of Trento. Some
people from Rovereto (Rosmini’s birth-place) placed copies of the Five Wounds
in the rooms of bishops and Cardinals, but the local priests immediately
withdrew the books and made a great bonfire in the courtyard of the Seminary.
The people of Rovereto, however, persisted and sent copies of the book to all
bishops and Cardinals world-wide at their own addresses.

3.With hind-sight we can say that the publication
of the book in 1848 was a great mistake, given the agitated political situation
in most of Europe. It was bound to raise fierce opposition from all quarters,
but especially from the Austrian Government. Austria, who was occupying most of
North Italy, viewed Rosmini as “our most formidable enemy” and “the evil genie of Pius IX” (from a letter of the Austrian Ambassador in Rome, 1849). Rosmini
was a subject of the Austrian Empire (Rovereto was under Austria at that time),
but he did not hide his strong desire for the independence of Italy as a
confederation of free Italian states. Moreover, in the Five Wounds, Rosmini
calls for full freedom of the Church in all rightful things, but especially in the
appointment of bishops, and in the full ownership of all Church’s properties.
Austria, on the contrary, exercised at the time an absolute control over the
appointment of bishops in the Austrian Empire, and the clergy and the
properties of the Church were dependent on its authority. Rosmini was
persecuted all his life by the Austrian authorities.

4.But why were 1848-1849 the worst years for the
publication and diffusion of the Five Wounds of holy Church?

5.Rosmini had been sent to Rome as a special envoy
of the king of Piedmont, Carlo Alberto, with the task of persuading the Pope to
grant a Constitution to his Papal States and to accept to be the head of a
Confederation of free Italian States. The Pope, who had Rosmini in the greatest
esteem, welcomed him and told him to get ready to be made a Cardinal. Everybody
at the curia was sure that Rosmini would have been made the next Secretary of
State. Unfortunately, the political situation in Rome deteriorated, with the
assassination of the Prime minister of the Papal States and a popular uprising.
Priests and some Cardinals were killed, and the Pope was forced to flee Rome in
disguise. He made his way to the kingdom of Naples and he remained at Gaeta for
over a year under the protection of the king of Naples and of the Austrian
Government. He asked Rosmini to follow him to Gaeta, and initially he relied
heavily on Rosmini for advice. Things changed drastically for Rosmini with the
arrival of the Austrian ambassador, “welcomed like a Messiah”.
The Pope was easily persuaded that the safety and security of the Pope and of
the papal States was with the traditional protectors, Austria and Naples and
any other Power that opposed movements of independence or of liberalisation.
The Pope told Rosmini that he was no longer a “constitutionalist”, and
that he had abandoned all his liberal views on politics. Moreover, Rosmini
found almost impossible to approach the Pope, and the Cardinals, led by
Cardinal Antonelli, a staunch supporter of Austria, made sure that Rosmini had
no influence on the Pope. And indeed, they used the Five Wounds as a powerful
tool against Rosmini.

6.Rosmini was asked by the Pope, under pressure
from some of the Cardinals, to clarify his teaching on the following suspected
opinions found in the Five Wounds: 1) The divine right of clergy and people in
the election of bishops; 2) The use of the vernacular in the Liturgy; 3)
Criticism of Scholasticism; 4) The separation of Church and State. Rosmini
clarified all points and sent a written paper to the Pope. He sent a second
letter, but to no avail: people at the papal court made sure that no letter
from Rosmini reached the Pope. Soon afterwards, the police of the kingdom of
Naples began harassing Rosmini with the clear intent to have him out of the
kingdom and in no position of influencing the Pope.

7.Rosmini left Naples on 15th July 1849. As he was
making his way towards Stresa, on 13th August 1849 he received the letter from
the Congregation of the Index which stated that on the order of the Pope the
Congregation had met (in May-June, when Rosmini was in Naples, but the meetings
had been kept secret from him) and had decreed that the book “Of the Five
Wounds of Holy Church” had been condemned and placed in the Index of forbidden
books. The Pope had approved the decree and was asking for submission. Rosmini
submitted at once, “I had
been kept in the dark about the meetings of the Congregation and I was never
told the reasons for the condemnation. I sent my full submission… Sit nomen
Domini benedictum”. He wrote in his letter
of submission: “As a
devoted and obedient son of the Holy See, which through the grace of God I have
always been in my heart and publicly professed to be, I declare that I submit
to the prohibition of this book, absolutely, simply, and as completely as
possible, begging you to inform the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation”. A few days later he wrote to the Master of the Sacred Palace: “I will add that by the grace of God alone,
I have never in my life had a temptation against the faith, nor have I ever
hesitated a moment to condemn anything that the Holy See might find wrong in my
writings or elsewhere”.

8.No official reason for the condemnation was ever
given. Rosmini was assured that nothing wrong theologically had been found in
the book; his own view was that the book had been condemned because of the
pressure of Austria on account of his insistence that the elections of bishops
are no matter for the State but for the Church and that clergy and people have
a divine right to elect their bishops, with the approval and final say of the
Pope.

9.The book was taken out of the Index just a few
years before Vatican II. It was widely known to the Bishops who took part in
Vatican II, and many of the ideas of the book found their way in the Vatican II
Documents. Pope Paul VI called the Five Wounds of Holy Church “a prophetic book”. It is the opinion of many that some of the Wounds are still
waiting for a cure, and we may need perhaps a Vatican III to tackle more
resolutely the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Wounds; and even the First and Second
Wounds are still very much open, although the Church of Vatican II has produced
important documents towards “healing” them.

10.The Five Wounds of Holy Church is a precious
theological book on the Church that Rosmini loved with all his heart. Here are
some important points which have been taken up by Vatican II and subsequent
Papal Documents:

·The living union of clergy and laity in the one
People of God.

·The active and intelligent participation of all
to the Liturgy

·Christianity as a “supernatural” reality and
mystery.

·The centrality of Scriptures and of the
Sacraments.

·The return to ancient traditions and to the
Fathers of the Church.

·The necessity of a living theology.

·The profound education of the clergy, on
Scripture, Fathers, Traditions.

·The collegiality of the bishops with the Pope at
the Head of the Collegium.

·The renewed awareness amongst Christians of the
Bishop as Father and Shepherd of the local Church.

·The presence and the consent of the People of
God (clergy and laity) in the election of their Shepherd, the Bishop.

·The responsibility of the whole People of God
for the Church.

·The freedom of the Church from political powers
and earthly riches.

·The real poverty of bishop and clergy, chosen as
a vocation.

·The work of charity of the Church for the poor
to whom the riches of the Church partly belong.

A final historical point
on the Five Wounds: Rosmini suffered greatly as a result of the condemnation of
the book. His reputation of outstanding Christian philosopher, theologian, and
spiritual guide, came under suspicion. Friends deserted him. Some theology
schools stopped teaching his theories. The Institute of Charity also suffered.
Rosminians were no longer welcomed in some Dioceses, some bishops opposed the
opening of new Rosminian houses, the flow of novices nearly came to a full
stop. The martyrdom of Rosmini and of his Institute came to an end only in
2002, when the Vatican issued a Declaration, a sort of apology for the
treatment of Rosmini!

The Five Wounds of the Church and some Documents of Vatican
II:

1st Wound

See Constitution on Sacred Liturgy

2nd Wound

See Decree on Priestly Formation ;

see also Decree on the Ministry and Life of priests.

3rd Wound

See Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral office in the Church.

See also Lumen Gentium.

4th Wound

See Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church.

See also Declaration on Religious Freedom

5th Wound

See Declaration on Religious Freedom.

See also various Papal Encyclicals on social issues.

The Five Wounds of Holy Church

1.The division
between people and clergy at worship.

2.The
insufficient education of the clergy.

3.Disunion
amongst the Bishops.

4.The nomination
of Bishops in the hands of civil government.

5.The enslavement
of Church’s goods (by the State and by the lack of poverty of the members of
the Church).

The First Wound

The Wound in the left hand of holy Church: the
division between people and clergy at public worship

“All the faithful,
clergy and people, represent and form in the Church the marvellous unity indicated
by Christ when He said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, in
agreement about everything they ask, there am I in
their midst”.

Rosmini had a very lofty
view of the dignity of the laity. The “faithful”, for Rosmini, are the clergy
and the laity together, representing and forming in the Church the
marvellous unity indicated by Christ when He said, “Where two or three are
gathered in my name, in agreement about everything they ask, there I am in
their midst”. Christ demands unity of minds and hearts, the clergy and the
people acting together “as one man” as Scripture says of the ancient
Israelites.

Rosmini writes about the
dignity of the laity:“There
are always holy, prudent men and women with the sense of Christ among them. The
people are a part of the mystical Body of Christ; together with their pastors
and incorporated with the Head, they form a single Body. In Baptism and
Confirmation they have received the impression of an indelible, priestly
character… The ordinary Christian possesses a mystical, private priesthood
giving him/her special dignity and power, and a feeling for spiritual things.
The clergy has its rights, but so have the Christian people. For example, the
Christian people can and must oppose a bishop openly teaching heresy. Their
sense of the supernatural teaches them to do this, and gives them the right to
do it. The Fathers of the Church taught that the people’s part in the choice of
their Pastors derived from the divine law…”. Rosmini wrote this in
1832, unique among all Christian writers of the time in stressing the universal
participation of all baptised in the mission of Christ, being with Him Priests,
Prophets, and Kings.

The early Christians, the Apostles and
the believers, were “one in hearts and mind”, they acted as one Body. Why? They
believed the same truths, they took part fully, body and soul, in their
liturgies, the Eucharist and the Sacraments. Everyone understood what
was being said and done.

JESUS came to save the
whole person, body and spirit. The Gospel had to appeal to both
elements of the human nature, to the mind and to the heart. The Apostles were
indeed sent out to “preach”, to instruct people. But they did not found a
school of philosophy, nor did they perform miracles simply to prove the truth
of what they were saying, nor gave examples of great virtues to persuade their
listeners. If they had presented Christianity simply as wisdom, as truths to be
believed, they would not have achieved much. Their appeal would have been
greatly reduced.

What did the Apostles do
to save the whole person, intellect and feeling, mind and heart, and to submit
the whole world to a cross?

JESUS’ command was, “Go
out into the whole world and make disciples of all nations, baptising
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. His
command was to “speak” to the intellect by the way of preaching, and to
regenerate the will, to touch the heart, to speak to feeling by “baptising”, by
the Sacraments, by the acts of worship of the New Testament. The Sacraments
were the mysterious rites and powerful works with which the Apostles reformed
the whole world. “The Sacraments were words and signs of God, creating
a new soul, creating new life, new heavens and a new earth. The Apostles added
to their preaching Catholic worship, which consists principally in the
Sacrifice of Mass, the Sacraments, and the prayers in which these are
expressed”.

Worship was not a spectacle, people were not to be present
to look but the people were in God’s temple to be an important element in
worship.
The sublime worship of holy Church is thus a single action of clergy and people
together.

“The people – writes
Rosmini – should be actors as well as hearers, while in fact they are mostly
present at Mass like the columns and statues of the building”. They should
have a profound understanding of the mysteries, prayers, symbols, rites, that
make up Catholic worship. “The separation of the laity from the Church at
worship through lack of comprehension is the first of those gaping wounds
dripping with blood in the mystical Body of Jesus Christ”.

Rosmini is keen to
reassure those who, through no fault of theirs, simply cannot make sense of
what goes on in Church, for the Spirit“helps us in our weakness; for we do not know
how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs
too deep for words”.
The
voice of simple, uneducated people, if prompted by the Spirit, penetrates heaven
itself. But worship is a common act of clergy and people, and it is together
that we approach the throne of grace, it is with as much understanding on our
part as it is possible that fervour, appreciation, reverence, and devotion
increase. Love grows between clergy and people and amongst the people.

What are the reasons for such painful and
unhappy division in the Church?

1.The first cause of the wall of division
is the lack of full, living instruction amongst Christians. Christ said to “preach” first: the people should receive the truths
of the Gospels, being educated in their faith, in the Scriptures, in the
traditions, in morality. Then He said, “baptise” them, worship through the
Sacraments that are simply powerful realities of what has been taught. The
teaching should be completed and made life giving by the participation to
Catholic worship. Rosmini approves of Catechisms so long as they are more than
simply repetition of formulas, abstract summaries. Faith is a living thing, and
the communication of the truth must be coupled with the experience of
supernatural power through worship. There cannot be full participation to the
Liturgy without solid knowledge of the truths of the faith. This profound
insight, which Rosmini drew from the early Church, had been lost for many
centuries; the present RCIA courses and all modern approaches to the
Catechumenate stress the intimate link between catechesis and worship.

2.The second reason for the division is
that Latin, used in worship, has ceased to be the language of the people. The understanding of words is essential to grasp the power of the
Sacraments, people and clergy cannot pray with one heart and one mind if the
words used in prayers are not understood. The demise of Latin as a living
language was caused by the invasion of barbarians and other factors, but it is
a fact.

Rosmini was asked
expressly by the Pope to repudiate the view assigned to him that he was in
favour of introducing the vernacular into the liturgy. Rosmini presents various
reason why Latin should be kept and the vernacular should not be introduced:

Advantages of keeping the Latin language in worship:

·Latin reflects the immutability of the faith.

·Latin unites many different Christian peoples in
a single rite.

·Latin signifies the unity and greatness of the
Church and common brotherhood.

·Latin produces an over-worldly, super-human
atmosphere.

·Latin gives the joy to know that people and
saints of the past prayed with the same words and expressions as we do.

Disadvantages of the vernacular:

·Too many modern languages, bringing divisions in
the Church.

·Modern languages are variable and unstable,
bringing constant changes in the words of the liturgy and upsetting the people
at worship.

Rosmini thought that
priests should make a greater effort to make people understand the liturgy and
the words used. He is not for the use of the vernacular, although he would not
perhaps have objected to its introduction. He calls for a profound education of
priests, so that they, who are meant to be the salt and light of the Christian
community, are enabled to foster tirelessly the greatest participation of the
laity in the Mass and Sacraments. Unfortunately, Rosmini adds, the insufficient
education of the clergy is the second wound of the Church.

It is clear that Rosmini
is far from approving the kind of liturgical innovations that have become
unfortunately too common in some of our parishes. He believed that little
change was needed, he appreciated greatly the liturgy of the Mass that we call
“Tridentine”. The Wound was not the liturgy as it was, but the fact that both
priests and people did not understand what was being done and what was being
said. He wanted a “living” liturgy, a liturgy performed by the faithful, clergy
and people, with “one mind, one heart”.

Rosmini had been
ordained a priest in 1821. He wrote in his diary,“From this hour I must
be a new man, live in heaven with heart and mind, converse always with Christ,
despise and flee from the things of earth. I must return from the altar a
saint, an apostle, a man of God”. St. John Bosco, who was helped by Rosmini on
many occasions, said of him,“I
have never seen a priest say Mass with more devotion than Fr. Rosmini”.

From the
Constitution on Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II:

“Day
by day the liturgy builds up those within the Church into the Lord’s holy
Temple”.
“Those who received the word were baptised. They continued steadfastly in the
teaching of the Apostles and in the communion of the breaking of the bread”
“Such participation by the Christian people as a “chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation” is their right and duty by reason of their baptism”
“It would be futile to hope for active participation unless the priests themselves
become thoroughly penetrated with the spirit and power of the liturgy”
“Priests are to be helped to understand ever more deeply what it is that they
do when they perform sacred rites; they are to be aided to live the liturgical
life and to share it with the faithful”.

The Five Wounds of Holy Church

Second Wound

The wound in the right hand of
holy Church: the insufficient education of the clerg

“Only
great men can form great men”

1.Preaching and the Liturgy were the two great
schools open to the Christian people in the finest period of the history of the
Church. The whole person was addressed, by the Word of God and the words of the
Liturgy that spoke to the mind, and by the efficacy of the rituals, symbols,
actions of the Sacraments and of the Eucharist in particular, that touched the
hearts. The preachers of the Word were holy men pouring upon their listeners
their own overflowing spiritual abundance.

2.We have a description of the Eucharist as
celebrated by the early Church which contains the two fundamental elements, the
words and the actions: “On
the day which is called after the sun, all who are in the towns and in the
country gather together for a communal celebration. And then the memoirs of the
Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits.
After the reader has finished his task, the one presiding gives an address,
urgently admonishing his hearers to practise these beautiful teachings in their
lives. Then all stand up together and recite prayers. When the prayers are
concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of wine
mixed with water. He who presides takes them and offers praise and glory to the
Father through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a
considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek eucharistian) that we have been
judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and
thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying, Amen. When
he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded those whom
we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water
and take them to those who are absent. Besides, those who are well-to-do give
whatever they will. What is gathered is deposited with the one presiding, who
therewith helps orphans and widows…” (St. Justin,
150AD).

3.Priests came from such fervent Christian
communities, who participated fully in the liturgy and who had absorbed the
power of the Gospel in their life. This fact helps to explain how some
outstanding members of such communities were elevated by common request from a
humble lay state to being bishops within a few days: see for example, St.
Ambrose, St. Alexander, St. Martin, St. Peter Chrysologus. They were well known
members of their Christian community and they all knew their zeal and their
fervour at their assemblies.

4.By the same standard, our own clergy are
no better than our faithful. It is the community that generates priests, a
great Christian community will generate great priests, a feeble Christian
community will generate feeble priests.

5.Rosmini lamented that the Christian communities
of his time had been neglected by the clergy to such a point that liturgies
were no longer understood, that knowledge of the Word was minimal, and that the
people of God had been reduced to spectators at the celebration of Sacraments,
unable to participate because of widespread ignorance. What kind of clergy would
emerge from such weak communities? “The first grade of priesthood is
the Christian himself”: a weak Christian will become a candidate to
the priesthood, not understanding the liturgy nor the Word of God, attracted by
the privileged or superior status of the priest in society not by the love of
God and of the people; such candidate will become a weak priest, who in turn
will lead weaker congregations and instruct new weaker candidates. “How can we begin to instruct and form in a
truly outstanding, priestly tradition such ill-prepared candidates? They are
ignorant of basic elements that should be presumed present in them, they have
no idea of the kind of knowledge required of priests, no idea of what they are
about to undertake as candidates for the priesthood. The poverty and misery of
ideas which form the preparation and training of modern ecclesiastics produces
priests ignorant of the nature of Christian laity, of Christian priesthood and
of the sacred bond between them. Ministers with petty hearts and narrow minds,
they grow up as priests and leaders of churches, educating priests weaker and
baser than themselves”.

6.For Rosmini this pitiful situation goes back to
the Dark Ages of European history, in effect from the end of the sixth century
after Christ. He considers the first sixth centuries as the golden age of the
life of the Church; the sustained invasions of barbarians from the North and
the East brought about progressively radical changes in many aspects of the
life of the Church, including the formation to the priesthood. This is
his historical analysis:

7. Priests in early Church were taught by the
best men the Church possessed. The “seminary” for the early Church was the
house of the Bishop. Priests and deacons lived with their bishop in a community
of faith and love. They learned from their bishop the love for the Scriptures,
the burning zeal for the Church, the care for the poor. Augustine was the
educator of a great number of priests, and of bishops who had been staying with
him in his house. Similarly Athanasius, Alexander, Sixtus, Jerome, Irenaeus,
Pantaenus, Hermas: they educated great priests and bishops, having themselves
been educated by other great bishops. “Only great men can form great
men”, says Rosmini. The Apostles had started the process: Timothy,
Titus, Mark, Evodius, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, all of them bishops of the
early Church, had been educated by the Apostles themselves. Irenaeus was in
turn educated by Polycarp: “I
remember even the place where blessed Polycarp sat when he preached the Word of
God. I remember vividly the gravity with which he moved from place to place,
his sanctity in everything he did, the dignity of his features and bearing, the
many exhortations he preached to his people. I can almost hear the way in which
he described his conversations with St. John and others who had seen JESUS”. These holy bishops reserved the education of priests to
themselves, and educated them through the holiness of their life and the
profound knowledge of the Scriptures. Their holy way of life guaranteed both
the unity of priests with their bishops, and the teaching of the same
doctrines.

8.This golden era came to an end with the
invasions of barbarians that brought chaos and destruction everywhere. Societies crumbled, and the people gathered for reassurance around
their bishops and priests, who became the mediators between the people and
their new barbarian rulers. The Church was thus suddenly flooded with worldly
honours and riches flowing in of their own accord. The bishops became functionaries
of the new states, with great power and wealth, no longer free but subject to
their rulers. They became detached from their priests, who also became further
divided between higher and lower clergy, competing against each other in the
acquisition of riches. Bishops ceased to be loved and followed as Shepherd,
they became feared as rulers, distant, surrounded by armies and courtiers.
Common life of bishop and priests ceased, and pastoral care was left to the
lower clergy, attracted now to the priesthood not by holy men and a holy way of
life but by greed and ambition.

9.Rosmini sees the Providence of God guiding
events, even when such events caused profound wounds to the Church. As a result
of the involvement of bishops and priests in the ruling structures of a society
dominated by the cruelty and ignorance of the barbarian rulers, the Christian
principles of love of neighbour, of social justice, of the rights of persons,
of meekness and concern for the poor and the sick, were slowly absorbed
transforming society from within.

10.Not all bishops and priests welcomed the
opportunity for power and influence that the political change had brought with
it. Rosmini mentions the lament of St. Gregory the Great, who ruled the Church
during this period, inconsolable at the sight of the dangers of the new world: “Dressed as a bishop I have returned to the
world. Modern conditions subject me in my pastoral duty to more cares than I
ever had in my life as a layman… The waves of business which fall upon me from
all sides, and the flood of fortune which submerges me, provide ample reason
for saying, I am come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me. Earthly
business makes it impossible for me not only to preach about the Lord’s
miracles, but even to meditate upon them”. The
irony of the situation was that whereas bishops often relished their new
status, power, and wealth, the converted rulers consecrated their crowns to the
Church and their highest glory was to be children and tributaries of the
Church. During this period, almost every throne in Europe had a saint as
sovereign.

11.Abandoned by their bishops, now more princes and
rulers of this world than spiritual leaders, and lacking proper formation,
priests reached such level of degradation that fell in the estimation of the
people and dedicated themselves to making money in every way, using the holy
things at their disposal. Sales of relics, of sacraments, of indulgences became
widespread, and vice and ignorance became common.

12.The Council of Trent tried to remedy this appalling
situation by devising the foundation of seminaries where candidates to the
priesthood could be given appropriate training. Unfortunately, teachers lacked
the greatness of the bishops of the early Church: “Compare the teachers – says Rosmini – if you want to
have some idea of the disciples! On one side you have the bishops of long ago,
or some of the most famous men in the Church; on the other, the young
professors in our seminaries. What a contrast!”
Teachers of seminaries, says Rosmini, had no experience of life, of parish, of
pastoral work. They had erudition but no wisdom; they knew by heart formulas
and summaries of doctrine, but they had no real understanding of the great
mysteries of the faith.

13.Moreover, the texts used in seminaries were useful
for erudition but not for educating priests in a way of life centred on Christ
and on his teaching. The texts used are “petty, one-sided works, without warmth or attraction,
the offspring of narrow minds”, which generate in
students a hatred for learning, for life!

14.Scripture was the sublime textbook for the early Church, that inspired
knowledge and faith at the same time. The Fathers of the Church used Scriptures
for all their teaching, all of them nourished themselves and their disciples
with the living waters of the Word of God. The greatest commentaries on the
Bible originated among these holy men, and indeed all the great works of
theology had holy bishops as their authors. The works of the Fathers
became in turn textbooks for candidates to the priesthood, but after centuries
of teaching them, with very little new contributions, even the study of the
Fathers became stale and repetitive. The next stage was the introduction of
Compendia of doctrines, the Summae, which became the field of the
Scholastics, after St. Thomas Aquinas. But whereas St. Thomas was
immensely profound and solid, his disciples reduced theological learning to
arid formulas, abstract definitions which did not speak to the hearts of
people. “Theological
knowledge grew but wisdom decreased, and the schools acquired the narrow,
restricted character that helped form the students into a class separate from
other human beings”. The new theologians,
says Rosmini, have taken texts further away from educating candidates: “These books will be judged the most
miserable, feeble works written in the eighteen centuries of the Church’s
history. They lack spirit, principles, style and method”. It is not surprising, therefore, that learning theology and living
a Christian life have become so disjointed. There is no substance, no
nourishment for the soul in such books, and the students can afford to learn
definitions without having to question the poor level of morality in their
life.

15.How different was the “education” of priests in
ancient times: the method, then, was to unite knowledge to virtue, to acquire
true wisdom, to study and lead holy lives at the same time, one aspect feeding
from the other. The imitation of Christ was being sought, His divine Words and
His mighty deeds learned and lived, and love for God, for the Church, for the
poor pursued with the same enthusiasm as love for the Scripture and for all
true knowledge.

16.In summary, there are four reasons for
the insufficient education of the clergy:

·Candidates to the priesthood come from
weak Christian communities;

·Weak, feeble candidates are taught by
weak, feeble priests;

·The poverty of textbooks used in
training priests;

·Lack of adequate method, disjunction
between learning and moral life.

For Rosmini, the
Episcopate is responsible for bringing “healing” to this wound. But the Bishops
must take action together, agree on all principles and methods. The Bishops
together must be the light on the mountain leading their priests by the example
of their common holiness and unity. Unfortunately, this essential unity among
bishops is what is lacking. The disunion among the bishop is the most serious
wound in the crucified body of the Church.

From the Decree on Priestly Formation of Vatican II:

“This Sacred Council proclaims the extreme
importance of priestly formation”
“A program of priestly formation should be undertaken by the Episcopal
conferences”
“The task of fostering vocations devolves on the whole Christian community,
which should do so in the first place by living in a full Christian way… Families
which are alive with the spirit of faith, love, and reverence serve as a kind
of introductory seminary… Parishes rich in vitality foster vocations among
their young people”
“Seminary directors and professors should be chosen from among the best… They should
create a family which intensifies in each student the joy of his calling. With
active and loving concern, the Bishop ought to inspire, and show himself to be
a true father in Christ to its students”
“Spiritual formation should be closely linked with doctrinal and pastoral
training… They should be taught to look for Christ, to live in constant
companionship with the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, in the Holy
Spirit”
“Seminarians should understand very plainly that they are called not to
dominion or to honours, but to give themselves over entirely to God’s service
and the pastoral ministry”
“The study of sacred Scripture ought to be the soul of all theology”.

The Five Wounds of Holy Church

Third Wound

The wound in the side of holy Church: disunion among the bishops

The six golden links

The word “collegiality”
has often been heard since Vatican II. What does it mean? It is the doctrine
finally hammered out at Vatican II according to which the bishops form a
college which, together with its head, the pope, governs the Church.“The Order of bishops is
the successor to the college of the Apostles in their role as teachers and
pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their
head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full
authority over the universal Church” (Lumen Gentium,22).Tensions
between the primacy of the pope and the collegiality of bishops have always
been very strong. Significantly, Vatican II needed to stress that the bishops
are all truly “vicars and legates of Christ” and not “vicars of the Pope”.
However, as recently as 1996, retired Archbishop John Quinn complained that the
papal curia too often considers itself as superior to the college of bishops
and so hinders the development of collegiality. As yet, there are few collegial
structures, apart from an Ecumenical Council. The Synod of bishops established
by Pope Paul VI simply advises the pope: “It is not a collegial organ of
leadership for the universal Church” (Ratzinger).

This union of the
bishops among themselves and with the pope in a Collegium is still some way
off. Many believe that we need a Vatican III to define precisely how this
perfect unity of bishops among themselves and with the pope, in a way that
shows their “full authority over the universal Church”, can be accomplished.
There is no doubt that immense progress has been made on healing this “wound”
since the time of Rosmini: bishops meet more regularly at every level, many of
them come to know each other quite well; through national Conferences of
bishops common documents are approved and promoted. But do bishops feel that
each of them is responsible not only for his own diocese but for the universal
Church? Are there structures that allow them to govern together the universal
Church, always under the leadership of the Pope? Are they all teaching the same
doctrine, the same liturgy, the same ethical code?

Rosmini claims that
“collegiality” or the union of all bishops was practised by the bishops and
popes of the first six centuries of the Church. It was only when the bishops
entered into the political arena that the evil of disunion and conflict plagued
the Church right up to his own time. This is his historical analysis:

1.JESUS, before His passion and death, begged the
Father to form his apostles into a perfect unity. Unity in the divine nature of
the blessed Trinity is the source of unity within the Episcopate of the Church.

2.The Apostles guarded jealously their unity and
the unity of their churches. Their interior unity was guaranteed by their
communion of doctrines and sacraments; their exterior unity by the powerful
links among the Apostles and their leader, Peter and later by their successors.

3.Although scattered throughout many nations,
bishops were conscious of forming a single body of the highest authority. Their
hearts and minds were dominated by this great concept of unity, and they used
every possible means to bind themselves together. All maintained exactly the
same faith, and love for each other.

·The bishops knew one another personally. Titus, Timothy, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom,
Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus were bishops who knew personally many
other holy bishops even before they became bishops. It was well known that the
house of St. Augustine was the house where many future holy bishops were
formed. These great bishops formed other great bishops and kept their profound
ties of Christian love and friendship.

·The bishops, even the most isolated,
were in constant correspondence, although they
lacked the means of communication available to us. The letters of bishops were
read reverently at public assemblies. The Apostles wrote letters to their
churches, other bishops followed their examples: Clement, Ignatius, Soter,
Athanasius, John Chrysostom, etc. Particularly moving are the letters written
by Ignatius to various churches as he was taken to Rome for his martyrdom (to
the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrneans).
In his letter to the church at Rome St. Denis says, “Today we have celebrated the Lord’s Day,
and have read your letter. We shall continue to read it for the sake of our
instruction, as we do with the letters already sent to us by Clement”. Seven letters of this great bishop of Corinth are extant, written
to different churches: to the Romans, the Lacaedemonians, the Athenians, the
Nicodemians, the Pontians, the Creteans, the Gnossians

·The bishops visited one another out of
mutual charity, or from zeal for church affairs. Their devotion embraced the universal church even more than the
particular church entrusted to them. They were conscious of being bishops of
the Catholic Church, and they realised that one diocese cannot be separated
from the entire body of the faithful. Each local Church embodied the totality of
the reality which is the Church, but their bishops were aware of the
fundamental necessity of being one with the other bishops and with the bishop
of Rome.

·Assemblies and Councils, especially
provincial councils, were held frequently.
Bishops of a province sought each other for advice, for clarifying doctrine,
for finding common solutions. Bishops would consult regularly with their
priests and with the people, giving them an account of their government.
People’s assent on all matters was valued so highly that if they rejected a
bishop they were not forced to accept him and another suitable person was
appointed in his place. St. Cyprian wrote to his priests, “At the beginning of
my episcopacy I decided not to make any decision without your advice and the assent
of the people”.

·The metropolitan bishop had authority
over the bishops of a province, while greater
sees had several provinces and metropolitans subject to them. This arrangement
provided for uniformity in doctrine and in practice and strengthened the bonds
among churches and bishops.

·The overall authority of the Pope which
was the foundation rock of the unity of the universal Church. In all their serious needs bishops and churches of the entire world
appealed to him as to a father, judge, teacher, leader, centre and common
source. Rome was seen as the great see where sound doctrine and the unity of
the Church on earth could be found visibly in the successor of St. Peter. The
pope was the symbol of unity of the universal Church, and bishops made continuous
pilgrimages to Rome to pray over the tomb of St. Peter and to report to the
Pope.

This golden era of the
Church came to end after six centuries. The same destructive force that was
responsible for the insufficient education of the clergy was also the cause of
the progressive disunion among the bishops: the end of the Roman Empire and the
sustained invasions of barbarian kings, with the establishment of the feudal
system. In the crumbling of the old systems, the bishops became the
intermediaries between the people and the barbarian rulers and they were forced
to enter the political arena acquiring in the process power, wealth, and
privileges. The “Christianisation” of Europe was the result of the presence and
influence of bishops and clergy in public administration, but such involvement
brought also evil consequences for the Church. The bishops soon learned to love
their new political status, and surrounded themselves with courtiers, armies,
and all the externals that they envied in royal princes. They devised
protocols, invented titles, built palaces, and generally, distanced themselves
both from their lower clergy and from the people. Avarice, hatred, disharmony,
lust, licentiousness became widespread among them, having been made subservient
to their rulers who guaranteed their position. “They became slaves of
men dressed in soft garments rather than free apostles of a naked Christ”. The
bishops’ political involvement and power was the cause of profound disunion
among them. Rosmini mentions the efforts of the ambitious bishops of
Constantinople, of Ravenna, of the anti-popes, to secure more power for
themselves and for their particular political rulers; the birth of
“nationalistic” churches ruled by bishops who were more loyal to their kings
than to the pope and to the gospel.

The bishops’
accumulation of wealth and power was envied not only by the people and the
clergy but became soon attractive to the nobility and to the kings many of whom
at different stages in history robbed the bishops of all their properties. The
response of the bishops was to defend their riches by means of
“excommunications”, thus making one reality of their wealth and of the Church
and often achieving worse results.

Rosmini claims that the
catholic faith might have been saved in some nations if the Church had been
freed of the wealth that endangered it.“But is it really
possible to find an immensely wealthy clergy courageous enough to impoverish
itself, or even with enough sense to understand that impoverishing the Church
is to save her?”

The Church longs for
freedom not for wealth. Free from all political interference, and free from
political involvement and wealth, the Bishops, poor and simple like the
Apostles, would once again become a beacon of communion among themselves and
ready to pursue with vigour the preaching of the Kingdom of God to all
creatures.

But to achieve this
political disentanglement the election of bishops must be a matter for the
Church exclusively. It cannot be achieved unless the fourth wound of the Church
is first healed.

From the Lumen Gentium and the Decree on
the Bishops of Vatican II

“In order that the episcopate itself might be
one and undivided, Jesus placed Peter over the other Apostles, and instituted
in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and
fellowship”
“The collegial nature and meaning of the episcopal order found expression in
the very ancient practice by which bishops appointed the world over were linked
with one another and with the bishop of Rome by the bonds of unity, charity,
and peace”
“The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the
unity of the bishops and of the faithful… Each individual bishop represents his
own Church, but all of them together in union with the pope represent the
entire Church”
“Bishops are united in a college or body… The Episcopal order is the subject of
supreme and full power over the universal Church. But this power can be
exercised only with the consent of the roman pontiff”
“Bishops should always realise that they are linked one to the other, and
should show concern for all the churches”.
“In exercising his office of father and pastor, a bishop should stand in the
midst of his people as one who serves. Let him be a good shepherd who knows his
sheep and whose sheep know him. Let him be a true father who excels in the
spirit of love for all”.
“From the very first centuries of the Church the bishops who were placed over
individual churches were deeply influenced by the fellowship of fraternal
charity and by zeal for the universal mission entrusted to the apostles. And so
they pooled their resources and unified their plans for the common good and
that of the individual churches. And so there were established synods,
provincial councils…. This sacred Council earnestly desires that the venerable
institutions of synods and councils flourish with new vigour”.

The Five Wounds of Holy Church

Fourth Wound

The wound in the right foot of holy Church: the
nomination of bishops left in the hands of civil government.

No man can serve two masters

For over a thousand
years, and at the times of Rosmini, emperors, kings, and political rulers in
Europe and world-wide had arrogated to themselves by force or had been given by
the Church under duress the right to nominate bishops for the sees in their
countries. The Pope was simply demanded to or reserved to himself the right to
“confirm” their nominations. This is the “wound” Rosmini is highlighting in
this chapter, but in presenting it and in giving a most painful historical
account of the way a “free” Church became enslaved to civil governments, he
also suggests that the Church ought to go back to the practice of the early
Church when bishops were elected by the clergy and the people. It was this
second issue that fired up people’s and theologians’ thinking right up to our
own times, and that became the pretext for the condemnation of the book.

For Rosmini, the clergy
and the people had a “divine” right to elect their shepherd. He was asked by
the Pope, Pius IX, to clarify this theological point which seemed to declare
“invalid” elections of bishops who had been nominated by rulers only, with the
approval of the Pope. Other bishops and theologians made the same request, and
Rosmini obliged by publishing three letters written to Canon Giuseppe Gatti. He
distinguishes between “divine constitutive right” and “divine
moral right”. The right clergy and people have in the elections of
bishops is “divine moral right” only and the violation of this right does not
cause “invalidity”; the Pope has indeed the authority to by-pass this right of
clergy and people if pressed by other serious considerations. Therefore all the
elections of bishops nominated by civil powers are indeed “valid” if they have
been confirmed by the Pope, as stated by the Council of Trent. The violation of
a “divine constitutive right” does instead render “invalid” the action of
whatever is being violated, but this is not the case of the divine moral right
of clergy and people to elect their bishop.

Rosmini, therefore,
claims only a “divine moral right” for the election of bishops by clergy and
people. But it is a very serious right indeed, of “divine” origin, and
therefore it ought to be exercised unless other very urgent considerations
intervene. Rosmini justifies the Popes who permitted the interference of civil
governments in the election of bishops on the ground that they believed
permission to be “the lesser evil”.

What about today? Most
civil governments have, thankfully, surrendered the “privilege” of electing
their own bishops, recognising the freedom of the Church in such important
matter; we say “most” because we are aware that State interference has not
ceased everywhere, see China, Cuba, and States with a totalitarian
regime. But, what about the “divine moral right” of clergy and people to
elect their bishops?

It is in the news these
days in the UK: the people of Northampton have been without a bishop for a long
time, and they are waiting for the Pope to make his mind up and decide finally
on one name out of the three that have been subjected to him by a restricted
number of bishops. The ordinary clergy and the people of God in Northampton have
not been consulted: for all they know, their Shepherd may well be some unknown
person from a far off part of Britain who may have no knowledge of the persons,
of the churches, of the real situation of the people of God in Northampton.

This is a typical
example, but the same procedure is being followed in the election of bishops
everywhere: has the time come to acknowledge and to respect in practice
the divine moral right of clergy and people to elect their Shepherd?

Rosmini even suggested
a method that could be followed in the election of the bishop.
Registers should be opened in each parish of the diocese“where the faithful who
so desired could give their opinion about the choice of bishop, indicate the
canonical irregularities incurred by those who might be chosen, and nominate
the priest they think most worthy to be future pastor of the diocese”. Prayers should be said in
the diocese for the best outcome. The registers are closed after eight days
by the parish priests who would convene “twelve of the older parishioners” and
the other priests in the parish to scrutinise the results, to discuss and send
them. The clergy then meets at the Cathedral, the various parish priests are
heard, then the names of those chosen by the people are made public to the
assembled canons and priests. The assembly cast their votes on the priests of
their own choice, and if the names deriving from both elections (people,
priests) are the same then the assembly progresses to the next stage, otherwise
they study the results and try to work out which is the name that has the most
votes. If the clergy does not approve any of the top names elected by the
people they must give reasons and put forward their own names. The people’s
chosen names and the clergy’s, or the name of the one who has been chosen by
the majority of both groups are then sent to the Metropolitan bishop who will
meet with other provincial bishops “as arbiters”, and they will submit the
decision to the Pope as supreme judge. The pope in any case will make the final
decision.The
election of the Pope, however, is a different matter and there should be no
change.The
history of the Church lays bare before our eyes as Rosmini gives us a
harrowing account of the dramatic struggle between Church and State over the
right of the election of bishops and abbots.The first six centuries
are the golden period of the Church: the Church was poor but free, and the
original structures set up by the Apostles and their immediate successors were
followed everywhere, the bishop was elected by clergy and people.Rosmini provides plenty
of evidence for his assertion, starting with the Church of Rome in the West,
the Church of Alexandria in the East, and the influential Churches of Africa.

·St. Clement, pope and martyr, and immediate disciple
and successor of St. Peter, wrote in his letter to the church of Corinth: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
Christ that there would be disagreement about the nomination of future bishops.
Because of this, they handed down a rule for future succession: bishops must be
outstanding men elected with the consent and approbation of the whole church”. The Apostolic Constitution, attributed to St. Peter, states, “I, Peter, as first among you, declare that
the person to be ordained bishop is to be without fault in all things, and
chosen by all the people as the most worthy… The president of the assembled
Christians must ask the priests and the people if this is their choice. If they
agree, he goes on to ask if all witness to the person’s worthiness for such an
office… When they have agreed for the third time, let the person be elected.” St. Clement and his successors remained faithful to this tradition
as we can see from the acts of St. Cornelius, Julius, Zosimus, Boniface,
Celestine, Leo the Great, Hilarius, Hormisdas, Gregory the Great, Hadrian I,
Gregory VII, Urban II, Pascal II and innumerable others. All these witnesses
strongly defended the tradition of the election of bishops by clergy and
people.

·What was the Alexandrian tradition about the
active presence of the Christian people in the election of bishops? St.
Athanasius and Origen spoke diffusely of the same tradition in the election of
bishops. Origen writes: “When
a bishop is ordained the people must be present so that all may know and be
sure that the most worthy, learned, holy and virtuous person amongst them has
been chosen for the priesthood in the presence of all. Thus, there will be no
reproaches later, nor doubts about the bishop. The Apostles insisted on this
when speaking about the ordination of bishops”.
And St. Athanasius, “When
the people have gathered the ordination should be carried out in the presence
of the people and of the clergy. The emperor Constance – Athanasius laments –
thought he would change the law of God by violating the Lord’s statutes handed
down through the Apostles. He sent bishops backed by the military to unwilling
people great distances away. His only recommendation and notification were
threats and letters to the magistrates”.
Athanasius regarded such false bishops as “intruders” and “wolves”.

·The churches of Africa testify to the same
unbroken tradition. St. Cyprian writes, “We recognise that choosing a bishop in the presence
and sight of all the people, when his worthiness and suitability are supported
by public witness and testimony, comes down to us from divine authority… What
we hold to in all our provinces as the rightful celebration of ordination is to
be preserved and held as of divine and apostolic observance. The people for
whom the new leader is ordained, the bishops of the provinces are to gather so
that the bishop may be chosen in the presence of the people who are fully
conversant with the life of individuals and aware of how each has behaved
himself”.

History shows as an
undeniable fact that in the greatest Churches founded by the Apostles, in the
churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Ephesus, Caesarea,
Heraclea, Corinth, Thessalonica, Carthage and others, the people took an active
part for many centuries in the ordinary choice of bishops. A bishop without the
support and approval of the people was considered an unlawful usurper.

This tradition remained
secure and universal during the first six centuries of the Church. The
invasions of barbarian armies which brought to an end the old Roman Empire
caused dramatic changes in the Church especially in her status as a poor but
free Mother of all her subjects. The new barbarian rulers favoured the Church
with wealth and power while at the same time enslaving her through the bishops
who became progressively political princes subjected to the authority of the
rulers.

The battle with secular
powers over the choice of bishops lasted many centuries. The Church
defended herself with decrees and canons, and strong statements from many
councils. Pope Symmachus, for example, already in 500AD published a Decree in
the presence of 218 bishops which declared:“We cannot permit any
power of decision in the Church to those whose duty it is to follow rather than
to command”,
and
then goes on to confirm the ancient manner of choosing bishops with the consent
of the clergy and people. Gregory the Great wrote in 593,“Inform clergy and
people of the city immediately to agree about a choice of bishop, and send the
decree of election so that he may be ordained with our consent, according to
ancient practice. Above all, be careful not to allow royal power, or patronage
from highly placed persons, to have any influence in the election”.

But all the efforts to
safeguard this fundamental principle of freedom for the Church produced little
results before determined and powerful kings and princes bent on accumulating
all authority and dominion on themselves. They spoke initially of
“royal assent” to the ordination of bishops, then they considered bishops as
their subjects and their properties as properties of the king. It happened
often that at the death of a bishop the king would not appoint a new bishop for
a long period so that he may enrich himself with all the revenues of the dead
bishop’s properties. It often happened that the king would offer the office of
bishop to the highest bidder. And because ordinary priests also shared church
revenues, kings decided that the Church should no longer have the right to
ordain even a humble priest without the king’s permission.

Freedom of choice in
Episcopal elections was almost totally lost by the beginning of the 11th
century. Abbot Ingulfus, a contemporary of William the Conqueror, thus
describes conditions in England:“For years now, there has been no free,
canonical election of prelates; Episcopal and abbatial office has been
conferred at the pleasure of the royal court by investiture with the ring and
the pastoral staff”.
It
is worth reading the sad pages produced by Rosmini as evidence of what he says,
particularly the heroic acts of Hincmar, the holy archbishop of Reims, and of
Pascal II.

It was Gregory VII that
brought to an end this long, sad period of the history of the Church. We will not
go into the details of Gregory’s battles against kings and princes of his time,
especially the emperor Henry IV, whom he had barefoot for days in the snowy
ground outside his palace at Canossa before admitting him and receiving from
him unreserved manifestations and words of sorrow for the damage he had
inflicted to the Church by his arrogance in selling Episcopal sees and getting
bishops to defy the Pope. In one of Henry IV letters to the Pope, before his
act of submission at Canossa, we read,“Our Lord the king commands you to resign from
the apostolic see and the papacy, which is his, and cease cluttering up this
holy place”!
Rosmini
claims that the real struggle between “priesthood” and “empire” was in reality
a struggle between corrupt bishops refusing reform and the Church wishing to
reform them. Behind every ambitious king in Europe there were many corrupt
bishops far more loyal to the crown than to the Church, that constantly advised
their kings on how to grab more power from the Church.

After Gregory’s victory
over the empire, there followed a relatively calm time for the Church, during which
ancient traditions and disciplines were re-established. But after a century or
so, “the
devil found a new and more subtle means for disturbing the peace and prosperity
of the Church: unlimited reservations”. The Church had triumphed
with Gregory VII, therefore she gained in prestige and power. She used the
power to concentrate into the hands of the Pope all the right of appointment of
bishops and abbots everywhere. This accumulation of power on the papacy
generated immense resentment among Christians, and they reacted “with disgust
rather than anger” at the sight of the supreme leaders of the Church reserving
all privileges to themselves in order to acquire more wealth and authority.

The bishops gathered at
the Council of Basel attacked papal reservations, causing kings and rulers
everywhere to demand from the pope acknowledgement of their rights and
privileges. A terrible consequence of this was the surrender, once
again, to secular powers of the nominations of bishops. Resultant
treaties forced the relinquishment by the popes of a large part of the freedom
of choice of Episcopal appointments. The nomination of bishops was granted to
the king; the Holy See simply retained its power to confirm the nomination. “In
effect, the new style of discipline, which still prevails and causes one of the
most painful and bitter wounds in the crucified Spouse of Christ, divided the
“reservations” between sovereigns and popes”.

This was the situation
at the time of Rosmini. He makes a powerful case inviting kings and emperors to
give up their ill-gotten privilege to nominate bishops. He reasons with them
and argues that it is in their best interest to let the Church of God free to
choose her bishops. He lists four fundamental principles in the election of
bishops which, he argues, can be properly fulfilled by the Church, never by the
State:

·“The best person available should be
chosen as bishop”: who is in the better
position to judge the qualities required of a bishop, the Shepherd of his
flock, who leads his people in the way of holiness by sound doctrine and moral
up-righteousness?

·“The priest chosen should be known,
loved and wanted by those whom he has to govern”: the church’s desire to have as father and pastor the priest it
feels more at home with is good and reasonable. But if rulers nominate the
bishops, the people’s wishes are rarely listened to.

·“The priest chosen as bishop should have
been enrolled for a lengthy period amongst the clergy of the diocese he is to
govern, and not be sent there as a stranger from a distant country”: it is in the best interest of the local church that the person who
is going to be the father of all is known to all. Rulers follow favouritism and
personal interest, not the interest of the people.

·“Generally speaking, only the moral body
or moral person concerned is capable of judging what is best for itself”: the Church is a spiritual and moral reality, and her interest and
mission differ widely from the preoccupations of civil governments. The Church
knows what is best for her, and the Christian people know what is in their best
interest in matters related to their salvation.

Finally, Rosmini, after
giving his full approval to the maxim established by Leo the Great, “The
person governing all should be chosen by all”, sums up the duties and
rights of the people of God in the election of their bishop:

·To bear witness to the virtue and
suitability of the bishop they are to receive.
They have the right to make known defects as Cyprian says, “so that in the
people’s presence good and evil may be discerned”.

·To express their desire and request for
the bishop whose virtues they witness to. The
bishops of Alexandria in supporting the election of St. Athanasius maintained
that he became bishop when “the entire crowd, together with the whole assembly
of the catholic church, united as one body and soul, cried out and shouted for
Athanasius as bishop of the church. They publicly begged this of Christ, and
beseeched us for it for many days and nights, neither leaving the church nor
allowing us to leave it. We ourselves, this city, and the whole of the province
are witnesses of the fact”.

·To refuse a bishop who has been chosen,
provided the refusal is the work of the majority or the more reliable part of
those belonging to the diocese. St. Celestine
prescribes that “no bishop shall be given to people unwilling to receive him”.
This is a kind of veto recognised by the Church as a right
belonging to Christian people.

From the Decree on the Bishops of Vatican
II:

“Bishops of themselves
enjoy full and perfect freedom, and independence from any civil authority…
Since the apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and
serves a spiritual and supernatural purpose, this most sacred ecumenical Synod
declares that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly,
peculiarly, and of itself exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical
authority. Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the
Church and of promoting more suitably and efficiently the welfare of the
faithful, this most holy Council desires that in future no rights or privileges
of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop
be any longer granted to civil authorities. Such civil authorities, whose
favourable attitude toward the Church this most sacred Synod gratefully
acknowledges, are most kindly requested to make a voluntary renunciation of the
above-mentioned rights and privileges which they presently enjoy by reason of a
treaty or custom”.

The Five Wounds of Holy Church

Fifth Wound

The wound in the left foot: restrictions on free use
by the Church of her own temporalities.

The early Church was poor but free

The modern reader of the
Five Wounds will find this chapter very challenging for the Church. The first
“four wounds” are indeed all relevant today, and there is still a long way to
go before the “healing” process has been accomplished. But there is greater
awareness of the importance of finding efficient remedies, and Vatican II has
certainly produced outstanding documents that reflect the serious intent of the
Church to reform herself from within.

Even from a cursory
reading of the pages of the fifth wound it is clear that Rosmini’s vision of
the Church is that of the Spouse of Christ embracing the same poverty of her
Bridegroom, who said,“Foxes
have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to
lay His head”.
Rosmini
asks that popes, bishops, and priests embrace evangelical poverty, as it was
the case in the early Church.“The
profession of poverty was for long the glory of the priestly ministry; the
majority of men called to the priesthood abandoned their possessions or gave
them away to the poor… The outstretched hands of the poor, of widows, lepers,
slaves, pilgrims and the destitute became vaults where the Church could deposit
her treasures without fear of theft”.

Few people today would
readily agree that the official Church is poor. Popes, bishops, priests,
religious orders, are not seen as the best examples of poverty, with a few
exceptions. The general consensus is that the clergy is at least comfortably
off, very often better off, and occasionally rich. This perception may well be
inaccurate but is often repeated; and many find unconvincing the defence that
being poor today simply means living by the same standards of the majority of
the people that are being served. Some argue that Christ and the Apostles chose
to live not according to prevailing standards; they chose the poverty of the
poor, and their precarious existence.
The early Church was poor, but free. Her evangelical poverty was
safeguarded by seven maxims which regulated the acquisition, administration and
use of material goods. Rosmini explains these ancient maxims with a
passionate plea that the Church of his time, the Church of our time, may
embrace them once again if she is to be the salt of the earth and the light of
the world.

1.The first requirement was that all
offerings to the Church had to be “spontaneous”. Christ obliged the faithful to maintain those working for
the gospel, but He appealed to the faithful’s free acceptance of His gospel,
and to their moral response. St. Paul, although acknowledging that he had the
moral right “to food and drink” for preaching the gospel, seldom used it
preferring to work hard for his food and the food of his own companions.
Moreover, the obligation that Christ imposed on the faithful of maintaining the
clergy did not extend beyond the strict needs of the preachers of the
gospel,“Remain
in the same house, eating and drinking what they may provide”. This maxim is stressed by Tertullian at the beginning of the third
century, “Each one who
can, puts aside some money monthly, or when he decides. No one is forced; all
give spontaneously. These funds are the investments of piety”. Spontaneity only ceased when the offerings were enforced
by sanctions imposed by the secular arm. This came about with the
advent of “feudalism” in the 8th century. For Rosmini, “feudalism” was an
unmitigated disaster for the Church, the most profound cause of all of the five
wounds of the Church. “Feudalism
– says Rosmini – extinguished the freedom of the Church and gave rise to all
her afflictions”. Barbarian kings considered
themselves the owners of everything within their territories, including all
Church’s properties. They distributed favours to bishops and expected in return
total subjection and loyalty to them. Barbarian rulers considered both people
and properties “theirs” by right of conquest. “We can easily imagine what occurred when Church
properties were no longer free possessions of the Church, but held under the
dominion of temporal rule. Offerings were extracted by force, the only power of
coercion available and understood by the secular arm”. The use of force changed the whole nature of the offerings to the
clergy. The faithful resented being forced to give, and their attachment and
love for their clergy disappeared. The clergy were now guaranteed a constant
income which did not depend on the amount of work they were doing. Moreover,
all donations to the Church were seen as ultimately the property of the feudal
ruler who could take over such donations at will. This “evil seed”, says
Rosmini, brought about the confiscations of the goods of monasteries and
churches all through the succeeding centuries, including the then recent decree
of 2nd November 1789 in which the national assembly in France declared all
Church properties to be at the disposition of the State.

2.The second maxim protecting the Church
from corruption was that goods should be possessed, administered and dispensed
in common. Initially the faithful brought the
proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Distribution was
made to each as any had need. We can only admire the love and union between the
believers, and wonder at the common life amongst clergy and faithful. This
requirement was preserved for a long time. The bishop, as successor of the Apostles,
normally distributed each month what was necessary for the maintenance of the
clergy who worked for the gospel in their dioceses. The funds came from church
possessions; no one had anything of his own. When Constantine permitted wills
to be made in favour of the Church in 321, he laid down, “Everybody is entitled to leave the
property he wishes to the holy and catholic council of the Catholic Church”. The emperor Valentinian made a law forbidding legacies in favour
of individual members of the clergy; St. Ambrose and St. Jerome approved of the
law. Goods held in common and administered by the wise love of bishops after
consultation with their clergy were of great assistance in producing and
safeguarding increased union amongst the clergy, and between the clergy and the
people. All of this came to an end with feudalism, which involved vassalage,
servitude to the ruler, who became the master of all that the bishops owned.
The bishop, with his possessions, became an isolated individual, a man like
everyone else, a courtier sharing the luxury of court life, perhaps the leader
of soldiers. As the bishop became lord or baron on his own behalf and that of
his ruler, the Church ceased to be visible in him; he was no longer bishop and
leader of his church, and of the people once united with him. “This tremendous, unnatural transformation
of churchmen impressed the mind of medieval bishops with the idea of their own
individuality, and weakened the notion of unity in the Episcopal and clerical
body. It broke up dioceses according to state and feudal boundaries;
eventually, almost all church property came to be administered and enjoyed by
individual clerics”.

3.The third, precious maxim was that the
clergy should use church goods only for the strict needs of their maintenance;
the remainder was to be applied to pious works, especially in alms for the
poor. Christ founded the apostolate on
poverty, and on abandonment to Providence, He himself was the perfect example.
Hence in the finest period of the Church, entering the ranks of the
clergy was equivalent to a profession of evangelical poverty. The
profession of poverty was for long the glory of the priestly ministry; the
majority of men called to the priesthood abandoned their possessions or gave
them away to the poor. These men never used the wealth of the Church for their
own benefit as though it belonged to them, but accepted it in trust for the
poor. The bishop, as first amongst the poor and the one responsible for
distribution, could rightly take something for himself and the clergy. Rosmini
quotes Julian Pomerius, a disciple of St. Augustine, who after praising St.
Paulinus and St Hilary who had embraced poverty from a very wealthy background,
wrote: “It is easy to
understand how holy men like these (who had renounced everything to become
followers of Christ) were perfectly aware that the Church’s possessions belongs
to the poor. They never used this wealth for their own benefit, but accepted it
in trust for the poor”. Feudalism brought to an
end this blessed period. When bishops and priests became subject to their
political masters, the goods entrusted to the Church by the generosity of the
faithful “instead of flowing down to the poor, either remained stationary or
finished in the rapacious hands of the local lord”, and the poor ceased to be a
sacred charge consigned to the care of the churches.

4.The fourth requirement governing Church
goods and safeguarding the integrity of the clergy was that ecclesiastical
wealth used for pious, charitable purposes, should also be assigned to fixed,
determined works to prevent arbitrariness and self-interest from interfering
with the management of the goods. In the early
Church resources were allotted to definite purposes according to a fourfold
division: for the support of the bishop, the clergy, the poor, and the upkeep
of church buildings and cult. “It is certain – says Rosmini – that the best remedy against the
corruption accompanying riches was the establishment of laws at various
Councils regulating the precise uses to which they could be applied”. The corruption and ruin of many ancient monasteries is to be
attributed to the lack of precise purposes to direct the great riches possessed
by religious houses. As a result, abbots and other superiors controlling
finances spent the income as they pleased. Feudalism destroyed the fourfold
fair distribution of the Church possessions, accumulating instead all wealth
into the hands of the few and powerful.

5.The fifth requirement safeguarding the
Church from the danger of riches was “a generous spirit, prompt to give, slow
to receive”. The great rule fixed in human
hearts was Christ’s noble words, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”.
Bishops considered money and administration a burden, to be borne only for
motives of charity. St. Ambrose refused legacies and donations if he knew that
poor relatives of the donor would suffer as a result. St. Augustine had to
defend himself against the accusation, “Bishop Augustine gives with total
generosity, but takes nothing”. What a glorious accusation, says Rosmini!
Augustine said that he would gladly have lived on collections from God’s people
rather than be burdened with responsibility for finances, which he was ready to
cede to the people so that all God’s servants and ministers might live by sharing
at the altar. But the laypeople refused his offer absolutely. It is truly
painful, and damaging to the true interests of the Church, as well as
scandalous, if public opinion is generally convinced that the Church’s hands
are always extended to receive, but never to give. It is sad to find people
thinking that what the Church puts in her treasure never leaves it; the result
is contempt, envy, the elimination of generosity amongst the faithful, and the
suspicion that the Church’s wealth goes on accumulating over the centuries
irrespective of the needs of the poor.

6.The sixth requirement compelled the
Church to make public the administration of all her possessions. In the early Church bishops consulted the clergy and the people on
all matters, including the use of the wealth of the Church. Moreover, the
priests and deacons in charge of the administration had to be approved by the
whole church, according to Apostolic tradition. St John Chrysostom was not
afraid to give an account of his administration of church income: “We
are ready to inform you of our administration”. The same spirit and
practice animated all early bishops. The people who make the offering should
also be aware of what is being carried out. Rosmini suggests that the people
should be involved from the beginning, from selecting the special works to
which funds are to be allocated to receiving a full account of the way money
have been handled. Religious orders, who distinguish themselves by the making
of a vow of poverty, should be the first to give a thorough account of how
funds are invested and used. By making all finances public, the Church would
shine before the world, and the temptation of using funds unworthily would be
considerably weakened. “An
obligation to present the faithful, and the general public, with an account of
their administration would provide the stimulus necessary for awakening many
drowsy consciences, and ensure that church offices were in the hands of honest,
sincere, devout persons”.

7.The seventh and last requirement is that
the Church should administer her goods watchfully and carefully. What the Church owns belongs to God and to the poor, and she has to
give a strict account to God of how she has administered God’s possessions. It
is true, says Rosmini, that through the centuries the voracious rapacity of
rulers and States have robbed the Church of so much of her possessions. But,
perhaps, much squandering of her wealth has been caused by churchmen who have
used it for their own selfish purposes and as though it belonged to them.
Rosmini adds, “If we
consider what the Church has received during the centuries of her existence,
and how much has been lost through lack of serious, careful administration, we
can only imagine where the Church would be now if her possessions had always
been wisely administered”.

In modern times, the
social teaching of the Church has certainly awoken consciences everywhere. From
the Rerum Novarum, to the Mater et Magistra, to the Pacem in Terris, to the
Populorum Progressio the Church has spoken most eloquently in favour of the
poor, the oppressed, the economically disadvantaged of the world. Throughout
the centuries, the Church has been the strongest defender and a mother to the
sick, the marginalised, the rejected. Of all human institutions, is there any
that can be compared to the Church in her dedication and commitment to the poor
throughout her long history?

And yet, Rosmini’s plea
that the Church herself needs to make an examination of conscience and assess
herself against the seven maxims that helped her in ancient times to live
according to the evangelical poverty willed for her by the divine Founder,
sounds very true and relevant, today as in his own time. The documents of
Vatican II speak about evangelical poverty when they deal with the religious
life. For Rosmini, however, evangelical poverty is a characteristic, a quality,
a requirement of the whole Church. It is the Church that has to be poor, and
the seven maxims should become working guidelines for the whole Church.

A few questions arising from the key
words of the seven maxims:

·Spontaneity: should the Church accept payments from the State collected from
the taxation of citizens? Italian bishops receive from the State salaries for
their priests with money raised from taxation of all citizens. The same applies
in Germany and Switzerland, and other nations.

·The Church owes everything in common: why such a disparity among the clergy? Why such a disparity among
the various dioceses of the world? Is individual possession still the norm?

·The wealth of the Church should cater
only for the strict needs of the clergy, for
the buildings and cult, all the remaining funds belong to the poor:
are we satisfied that this is the case? Are priests, bishops outstanding in
their poverty? Is there a substantial fund in each parish, diocese for the
poor?

·Funds should be allocated to fixed
purposes or works: does it happen in our
parishes, in dioceses, the Church worldwide? Are a few individuals responsible
for spending the money of everybody? Is there constant consultation of the
faithful in all financial matters of the parish, of the diocese?

·It is more blessed to give than to
receive: are churches accumulating too much,
always ready to receive, never prepared to give generously to the poor? Are our
churches more “businesses” than the Body of Christ?

·Public account: do churches consult the faithful in all financial matters, do they
consider the faithful as the owners with the clergy and the poor of all
church’s properties? Are they given a detailed account of income and
expenditure on a regular basis? The same applies to dioceses, religious orders,
and to the Vatican.

·Church possessions are God’s possessions: do churches consider all their properties and financial assets as
“God’s property”? Are they careful and scrupulous in the way they administer
what has been put into their care for the benefit of all?

Final THOUGHT:

“Through His
wounds we are healed”

“Intra Tua vulnera absconde me”

The Five Wounds of the
Church should not be cause for despair and pessimism. The bleeding wounds of
Christ on the cross were not the end of the story. Christ rose from the death,
and the marks of those wounds became the mighty signs of God’s infinite love
for us and of His redeeming salvation. The water and the precious Blood that
came out of the wound on the side became the streams of living water of baptism
and the manna from heaven of the Eucharist, indeed through them the Church was
generated. The Five Wounds of the Church are a challenge, but we place all our
trust in the power of the Blessed Trinity. The third Maxim of Christian
perfection enjoins on all baptized to “remain perfectly tranquil with regard to
all that happens to the Church of JESUS Christ, in accordance with God’s
designs, and to follow God’s call in working for the Church”.